On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 04:54:57AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Erik Steffl wrote:
> > are you talking about pre-2k times only? I mean during last four years
> > imap support seems to be pretty good (and improving). Thunderbird
> > definitely isn't the first usable MUA, as far as imap support goes.
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 16:43:42 -0400
> From: Roberto C. Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: debian-user
> Subject: Re: On IMAP servers
> Resent-Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 15:43:46 -0500 (CDT)
> Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debia
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 04:43:42PM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 11:28:52AM -0500, Steve Block wrote:
Apple's Mail.app has done it well for years. It's still the best damn
mail client I've ever used.
Have you tried GNUMail.app (Debian package by the same name)? I
Franki wrote:
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 12:23:43AM -0300, Rogério Brito wrote:
On Jun 05 2005, Steve Lamb wrote:
I'd say go with UW's IMAP server.
I'd say go with UW's IMAP server *only* if your computer isn't facing
the
Internet -- it has a bad security track
Erik Steffl wrote:
ok, so how come I was using mozilla email client since 2001/10/27 and
saving emails, moving to trash, saving drafts etc.? that qualifies as
past few years, right? BTW that's only with cyrus server (my current
setup), I was briefly using uw-imap before that and it worked eve
Steve Lamb wrote:
Erik Steffl wrote:
are you talking about pre-2k times only? I mean during last four years
imap support seems to be pretty good (and improving). Thunderbird
definitely isn't the first usable MUA, as far as imap support goes.
Nope. In the past few years I've tried Netsc
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 11:28:52AM -0500, Steve Block wrote:
>
> Apple's Mail.app has done it well for years. It's still the best damn
> mail client I've ever used.
>
Have you tried GNUMail.app (Debian package by the same name)? I would
say that it is a fairly close approximation (though a do n
TreeBoy:
>
> However, that's not so bad when you consider I have over 50,000 in my
> Debian-User archive and over 30,000 in the Ubuntu-User archive. I really
> should delete both of these, but I'm interested in how this 800MHz Mini-ITX
> server scales: it can take 20 seconds to show the list of
On Monday 06 Jun 2005 12:54, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Erik Steffl wrote:
> > are you talking about pre-2k times only? I mean during last four years
> > imap support seems to be pretty good (and improving). Thunderbird
> > definitely isn't the first usable MUA, as far as imap support goes.
>
> Nope
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 04:54:57AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
Erik Steffl wrote:
are you talking about pre-2k times only? I mean during last four years
imap support seems to be pretty good (and improving). Thunderbird
definitely isn't the first usable MUA, as far as imap support goes.
Nope.
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:08:30AM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
when I started using IMAP (2001/10/27) I tried number of IMAP capable
MUAs and all of them were kinda OK, mutt is the only one that I cannot
make save sent messages in imap folder but I guess I just need to read
the docs (I didn't t
Ron Johnson wrote:
> Bull. Evo has always give the option to save Sent & Drafts where-
> ever you want to put them.
Yes, and where in my list did I say I tried Evo before 2003? You are
aware that I was expressing what I had personally verified, right? And you
are utterly incapable of provid
On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 01:25 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Rogério Brito wrote:
[snip]
> remote mail folders. This is evident in the fact that until Thunderbird no
> email client, and I do mean none, did it right. They all failed on the
> simplest of tests. Were they able to be configured so their s
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:01:09PM +0200, Jochen Schulz wrote:
> Erik Steffl:
> >
> > when I started using IMAP (2001/10/27) I tried number of IMAP capable
> > MUAs and all of them were kinda OK, mutt is the only one that I cannot
> > make save sent messages in imap folder but I guess I just nee
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:55:55AM -0500, Steve Block wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:20:40AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> >Short summary of popular IMAP servers:
> >server why you would use it
> >--
> >UW IMAP You are a masochist
> >Cyru
Erik Steffl:
>
> when I started using IMAP (2001/10/27) I tried number of IMAP capable
> MUAs and all of them were kinda OK, mutt is the only one that I cannot
> make save sent messages in imap folder but I guess I just need to read
> the docs (I didn't try much).
Hm? There's nothing special a
Erik Steffl wrote:
> are you talking about pre-2k times only? I mean during last four years
> imap support seems to be pretty good (and improving). Thunderbird
> definitely isn't the first usable MUA, as far as imap support goes.
Nope. In the past few years I've tried Netscape, TheBat!, Syl
Steve Lamb wrote:
Rogério Brito wrote:
Not only Thunderbird, but other MUAs, independently of what platform you're
confined to use. That's the beauty of IMAP, IMVHO.
That's the beauty of properly implemented IMAP on the client side. I
remember back in my PMMail/2 beta test days ('94-'95
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:20:40AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
Short summary of popular IMAP servers:
server why you would use it
--
UW IMAP You are a masochist
Cyrus IMAP You need *serious* scalability (e.g., 100,000 users with
Franki wrote:
Actually, you can do virtual users without shell accounts via courier as
well.
I'm running a Postfix/amavisd/spamassassin MTA with courier IMAP/SASL/Mysql
All users are virtual and administrered via the Postfix admin PHP app.
There are heaps of tutorials around on how to do this,
Rogério Brito wrote:
> Not only Thunderbird, but other MUAs, independently of what platform you're
> confined to use. That's the beauty of IMAP, IMVHO.
That's the beauty of properly implemented IMAP on the client side. I
remember back in my PMMail/2 beta test days ('94-'95?) trying to explain
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 12:23:43AM -0300, Rogério Brito wrote:
On Jun 05 2005, Steve Lamb wrote:
I'd say go with UW's IMAP server.
I'd say go with UW's IMAP server *only* if your computer isn't facing the
Internet -- it has a bad security track history and many p
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 12:23:43AM -0300, Rogério Brito wrote:
> On Jun 05 2005, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > I'd say go with UW's IMAP server.
>
> I'd say go with UW's IMAP server *only* if your computer isn't facing the
> Internet -- it has a bad security track history and many people don't trust
> it.
On Jun 05 2005, Steve Lamb wrote:
> I'd say go with UW's IMAP server.
I'd say go with UW's IMAP server *only* if your computer isn't facing the
Internet -- it has a bad security track history and many people don't trust
it.
> as far as I can tell there is none. Either it works or it doesn't. :D
24 matches
Mail list logo
